K.G. DHARANESH Vs. M.T. PUSHPA @ KARIBASAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a husband's petition challenging the order passed by Senior Civil Judge, Harihar dismissing his petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty. Petitioner-husband Sri. K.G. Dharanesh married respondent Smt. M.T. Pushpa on 26.05.2003 according to Hindu rights of Lingayath Community. On the very same day sister of petitioner was married to the brother of respondent. Both the marriages took place at the residence of petitioner at Guddehalli, Honnali Taluk. A female child was born named as Kum. Rashmi who is aged about 4 years and admitted to school. Petitioner is in service and working as a teacher in Higher Primary School at Kadasuru in Hosanagar Taluk. Petitioner was residing in Humcha in a rented premises for a period of three years with the child. The relationship was not cordial even from the beginning days of marriage and respondent was quarrelling on petty matters and used to abuse petitioner with filthy language in public. Respondent used to come to her parents house often and insisting the petitioner to come out of the family and desert his parents and other members of the family. When respondent went to her parents house for delivery her behaviour with petitioner became abnormal without any reason. She used to abuse petitioner and his father in public. Even after return she continued to ill treat the petitioner and members of his family. She never cared either for the petitioner or newly born baby. About three years back petitioner was forced to come out of the family by deserting his parents and started residing in Humcha, Hosanagar Taluk. Relationship of the petitioner's sister and brother of respondent was strained. Respondent was also quarrelling with the petitioner on that count. She was adamant and careless in her attitude. Respondent was not cooking food for petitioner for days and months and throwing vessels and other things abruptly in front of the relatives and friends of petitioner and used to abuse petitioner with vulgar and filthy language. Therefore he got issued legal notice to the respondent calling upon her to stop aforesaid illegal activities and co-operate for dissolution of the marriage and also to hand over custody of the child to the petitioner for her well being. Said notice was duly replied. Therefore he filed a petition for divorce.

(2.) Respondent contested the matter by filing detailed statement of objections. She has denied all the claims made in the petition. She contended that she never treated the petitioner with cruelty either mentally or otherwise and it is just imagination being made at the instigation of his parents and sister. Respondent being loved wife to the petitioner and petitioner was working at Humcha. Respondent not only tolerated his inhuman and overt acts but also suffered at the hands of his parents and she never looked after by petitioner and his parents properly. Petitioner denied her minimum necessities in life still respondent tolerated his inhuman acts. When he persisted in his illegal acts respondent was constrained to file a petition seeking grant of reliefs including monetary relief under the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- was granted. She preferred an appeal as the said amount was inadequate. In appeal amount was enhanced to Rs. 3,500/- per month. However after enquiry maintenance was fixed at Rs. 5,000/- for her and her daughter who was then aged about 8 years. She contends that this petition is counter blast case for the dispute between her brother and petitioner's sister. When she was troubled for dowry she was forced to lodge a complaint with the jurisdictional police against petitioner. It is thereafter this petition is filed. Therefore she sought for dismissal of the petition. On the aforesaid pleadings trial court framed the following issues:

(3.) Petitioner to substantiate his claim examined himself as PW-1, examined his father as PW-2 and also examined one witness PW-3 and produced documents which were marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-3. Respondent examined herself as RW-1. Trial court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record held that evidence did not establish cruelty by the respondent. Therefore petition came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order present appeal is filed.